Solar Panel Guide Discussion

spgsc531

Martyn1981 wrote: »

In his defence (am I really going to defend him - probably get one of those telling off posts from him, for being nice to a MSE member - oh well!) I thought it was extremely honest to post an article that is so positive about PV and ST.

I assumed that the UK would take 5 to 10 years to get bored with moaning about 'that roof no longer looks exactly the way that roof used to look'. But it seems acceptance started to arrive nearly 2 years ago, and when PV install numbers were only about 100k (don't know how many ST installs there were).

With growing acceptance and rising energy bills I can only assume that 'added value' will grow, just like double glazing, new kitchen, central heating etc..

[Edit: is 'added value' the correct term? I'm not sure we add value anymore for DG, GCH etc, instead perhaps, we fail to deduct value from the property. I suspect such items have moved form 'added' luxury to 'expected' necessities(?) M.]

Mart.

With current & future Legislation inbound the majority if not all new homes will have solar panels towards the end of this decade and onwards. There's no doubt they will become accepted/understood by the public.

With falling costs, 'free' energy and rising energy prices, it's hard to take seriously anyone against them.

Dave_Fowler

spgsc531 wrote: »

(1) The survey, and you it seems, doesn't appear to take into account FiT payments. Systems installed receiving the original FiT payment rate must have more value than systems receiving the current rate (also 5 year longer payment term).

(2) Taking into account the different FiT rates, I would say it makes a huge difference.

Good point and one which I'd missed. I shouldn't have missed it as I have one system on the old 47p rate and one on the newer 13.99p rate!

Dave F

zeupater

spgsc531 wrote: »

I wondered how long before you surfaced again. Perhaps there should be a study into you going quiet on here after being shown up yet again, and you re-surfacing?

(1) There you go again, getting even simple facts wrong. Or did you deliberately exaggerate it? Please point out where this amount is true?

(2) Have you considered that this study is therefore probably flawed, perhaps the people questioned didn't understand the true pros and cons of both systems?

I know you like to pull old, out of date 'facts' and regurgitate them continually. Is this study your new Monbiot? I'm sure everyone noticed you going quiet on the thread specifically made for you. What a surprise.

Of course as well as not seeming to take into account FiT payments in that study, installation prices have fallen dramatically since then too and energy prices continue to outstrip inflation.

So really, like the only other 'facts' you care to 'enlighten' this forum with, it's not really relevant anymore.

Hi

I don't really follow the continual need to attempt to censure another member, especially when the post in question was correct in detail, fact & sentiment ....

To place into context ... regarding point 1, testing your own assertion, two identical houses for sale, both with identical owned pv installations, one with FiTs at ~50p/kWh for 23years, the other ~15p for 19 .... which is the most attractive to the astute purchaser ? .... this is simply the point which was being made and I, supported by logic, agree in full. As for point 2, there's obviously further agreement between the referenced post and the op's viewpoint considering that the op's post which was referenced stated so ....

.... so, seeing that logic would dictate that the viewpoints are not diametrically opposite, as to why this approach is necessary is open to interpretation, however, it has been used by previous member profiles in the past and invariably leads to the same result ....

HTH
Z

spgsc531

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

I don't really follow the continual need to attempt to censure another member, especially when the post in question was correct in detail, fact & sentiment ....

To place into context ... regarding point 1, testing your own assertion, two identical houses for sale, both with identical owned pv installations, one with FiTs at ~50p/kWh for 23years, the other ~15p for 19 .... which is the most attractive to the astute purchaser ? .... this is simply the point which was being made and I, supported by logic, agree in full(1). As for point 2, there's obviously further agreement between the referenced post and the op's viewpoint considering that the op's post which was referenced stated so ....(2)

.... so, seeing that logic would dictate that the viewpoints are not diametrically opposite, as to why this approach is necessary is open to interpretation, however, it has been used by previous member profiles in the past and invariably leads to the same result ....

HTH
Z

(1) cardew said 50p+/kWh. I contested that 'fact'. As you agree with him, like I asked him please post proof of 50p+/kWh subsidy.

(2) I agreed, and so pointed out that maybe the study is flawed. Again, I fail to see your point.

John_Pierpoint

John_Pierpoint wrote: »

Has anyone tried to do a survey based on the FiT database?

This graph does not sufficiently analyse the FiT database to support my contention about the desirability of a solar PV installation to a buyer, but I add it for interest.

zeupater

spgsc531 wrote: »

(1) cardew said 50p+/kWh. I contested that 'fact'. As you agree with him, like I asked him please post proof of 50p+/kWh subsidy.

(2) I agreed, and so pointed out that maybe the study is flawed. Again, I fail to see your point.

Hi

In order ....

Point 1 - I think that it's pretty much apparent what the sentiment was and with the total tariff being 48.46p/kWh before the 'subsidised' system saves ~£100, then a 4kWp system generating ~3600kWh/year would create an additional saving of ~2.78p/kWh of generation(100/3600), therefore the saving, due to a system which would likely not have been purchased without the 'subsidy' would be ~51.24p/kWh generated (48.46+2.78) .... being pedantic, the date of sale was also not defined, so leaving the above aside, the difference equates to 3.1% (50/48.46), which would likely bring the figures in line with the passage of just one more year, probably meaning a purchase decision & offer made towards the end of this calendar year would apply the op's logic ....

Point 2 .. Of course, it wouldn't be expected for anyone to concede that there was a point to be made about a calculated, inflammatory, pointless & unnecessary point ....

The thrust of my own post is that a continual 'ad-hominem' (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem) approach to a particular member is not the same as holding either an objective or logically subjective debating position, thus rarely gaining support ...

HTH
Z

zeupater

John_Pierpoint wrote: »

This graph does not sufficiently analyse the FiT database to support my contention about the desirability of a solar PV installation to a buyer, but I add it for interest.

Hi John

Interesting .... but have a look at this view of the same data, it'll stimulate your neurons for a while .... http://tools.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/statistics/local_auth/interactive/domestic_solar/index.html

HTH
Z

John_Pierpoint

Meanwhile here is an update on London's only attempt to create hydro power from its only chalk stream.
http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/wra-1356319474069/view-page/item896935/
A modern waterwheel
The turbine acts as a modern waterwheel, harnessing the power of the river to generate electricity. It is estimated that it will generate 59,000 kWh a year – about 12 times as much electricity as an average household uses.

spgsc531

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

In order ....

Point 1 - I think that it's pretty much apparent what the sentiment was and with the total tariff being 48.46p/kWh before the 'subsidised' system saves ~£100, then a 4kWp system generating ~3600kWh/year would create an additional saving of ~2.78p/kWh of generation(100/3600), therefore the saving, due to a system which would likely not have been purchased without the 'subsidy' would be ~51.24p/kWh generated (48.46+2.78) .... being pedantic, the date of sale was also not defined, so leaving the above aside, the difference equates to 3.1% (50/48.46), which would likely bring the figures in line with the passage of just one more year, probably meaning a purchase decision & offer made towards the end of this calendar year would apply the op's logic ....

Point 2 .. Of course, it wouldn't be expected for anyone to concede that there was a point to be made about a calculated, inflammatory, pointless & unnecessary point ....

The thrust of my own post is that a continual 'ad-hominem' (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem) approach to a particular member is not the same as holding either an objective or logically subjective debating position, thus rarely gaining support ...

HTH
Z

I'm pretty sure the size of installation wasn't mentioned by cardew, nor the hypothetical annual generation nor was hypothetical electrical savings mentioned.

It's quite impressive to watch you try to squirm out of agreeing with what he said though.

zeupater

spgsc531 wrote: »

I'm pretty sure the size of installation wasn't mentioned by cardew, nor the hypothetical annual generation nor was hypothetical electrical savings mentioned.

It's quite impressive to watch you try to squirm out of agreeing with what he said though.

Hi

On the contrary, despite the suppositions raised above, I fully stand behind what I originally posted and therefore fully agree with the op's post in question as being correct in detail, fact & sentiment ....

Regarding and addressing what you would classify as being 'hypothetical' ..... On these boards it's pretty well accepted that typical electricity savings resulting from a pv installation would be expected to be in the region of £100, this being mainly linked to baseload consumption of generation, with high load applications typically being intermittent. A 4kWp system was selected specifically because it is higher than average for a domestic installation, but still typical, and, very importantly, doesn't fall into the trap of manipulating the figures to suit - of course, selecting a 2kWp system would suit the position even better, as would using a saving of ~£130 or calculating at an anticipated annual generation below 900kWh/kWp ....

The 'proof' which was previously requested from both the op & myself has been provided as multiple logical alternatives, even though the request to do so would be considered by many as being extremely puerile, therefore acceptance, or not, is in the eye of the beholder ... all that's needed is for the beholder to take an objective view, which most do, as opposed to taking the confrontational 'ad-hominem' approach ....

HTH
Z